That's not intrinsic value. It's just, not. It's alternative uses which in the past have caused Gold to be bootstrapped as store of value. Take the store of value away and gold will drop to <5% of its market cap. Bitcoin will retain some of its value too in that case as its a secure distributed ledger, but it will be <1%.
According to this definition, you'd be right.
In commodity money, intrinsic value can be partially or entirely due to the desirable features of the object as a medium of exchange and a store of value. Examples of such features include divisibility; easily and securely storable and transportable; scarcity; and difficulty to counterfeit. When objects come to be used as a medium of exchange they lower the high transaction costs associated with barter and other in-kind transactions.
So, I'll find better wording.

If you take the store of value element away from either, it will have a serious impact, except Bitcoin would be worthless and gold can still be used in the tangible world, as I said, to make jewelry, Donald Trump's condo, provide conductive elements inside electronic devices and can still act as a medium of exchange. All Bitcoin has is it's ability to store value. Without that, it's nothing. Isn't that the point, storing value without counter-party risk?
How do transactions get progressed for gold without electricity? Bitcoin can function in the same way (but it loses a lot of it edge, albeit temporarily until power is restored).
Hmm...how transactions in gold got processed without electricity? Is this a serious question?

It's just too funny, though, they did seem to manage for thousands of years prior to the invention of the lightbulb. To say that Bitcoin may "loose a bit of it's edge" without electricity, is the understatement of the year. Let's be more accurate, Bitcoin is USELESS without electricity. I'm not sure why this is even being called into question.
